Van Brunt v. Hathaway
Annotate this CaseWALTER C. VAN BRUNT et al., Respondents, v. GLADYS M. HATHAWAY, Appellant.
COUNSEL
No appearance for Appellant.
Hulen C. Callaway for Respondents.
OPINION
The Court.
This case is before us on an order to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. The clerk's transcript was filed September 23, 1936. [1] Thereafter the cause was regularly ordered on [17 Cal. App. 2d 626] calendar for November 20, 1936, and due notice given, and service on the order to show cause has been duly made. The appellant has made no appearance in the case. No briefs have been filed. No extensions of time have been requested.
The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
